Oh Boy, they outdid themselves this time [Archive]

View Full Version : Oh Boy, they outdid themselves this time

Ron_Tomkins

17th August 2008, 09:03 AM

Brendy

17th August 2008, 09:25 AM

Lookie look what I stumbled upon:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/main.php

The website that proves that God exists.

As you click on the "the proof" link, you will be given 4 options. If you're like me, you might click on the "I don't care if Absolute Truth exists". What happens after clicking on it is absolutely hilarious.

I like how he says laws of logic are universal then he becomes completely illogical. He says laws of logic, science, math and morality are immaterial which is incorrect. He says show them to me if they are material. Ok i'll drop and apple off a roof. Matter is affecting matter when it is dropped. Gravity is a material thing. He also says morality is universal, yet we can look at the different nations on earth and see that laws are different in each one. Obviously morality is individual not universal. There is so much more I could point out, but I won't waste my time anymore.

Ron_Tomkins

17th August 2008, 09:36 AM

Heh heh heh

" But, as you have probably gathered by now, as wonderful as the physical evidence is, this website is not about physical evidence. "

So much for that then. It's already justified. Physical evidence doesn't count. Don't question why. It just doesn't count. Argument justified.
Metaphysical evidence is what counts then, I guess.

"Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true. We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary!"

Either-or Fallacy. Heh heh heh.

"We use rational thought, therefore we can know that the Bible is true. Attempting to use logic to try to disprove the only possible source for logic would be self-refuting."

We use rational thought but we don't use logic. Can't think of a better contradiction.

Achán hiNidráne

17th August 2008, 09:43 AM

And what are the "laws of morality?" Wait, don't tell me, let me guess...

http://posters.motechnet.com/covers/tt0049833_largeCover.jpg(Insert picture of "The 10 Commandments" movie poster that was supposed to be here.)

Riiiight.

Lensman

17th August 2008, 11:00 AM

"Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true. We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary!"

Isn't that circular reasoning?

Toke

17th August 2008, 11:22 AM

There is only one right answer to each question, and it seems that absolute and unchanging morality is an important part.

Faulty logic = Proof of god. :D:D:D

17th August 2008, 11:34 AM

Isn't that circular reasoning?

No. It's Möbiusar reasoning.

Toke

17th August 2008, 11:40 AM

Nominated :D

Loopus

17th August 2008, 02:29 PM

Clearly a vague understanding of the rules of logic is a dangerous thing. It made this fool think he could accomplish what Descartes messed up.

Even if I conceded that absolue morality exists; that the laws of logic, science, mathematics, and morality are immaterial; that said laws are universal and unchanging... even if I accepted all the steps of his "proof," I don't really see how his conclusion is supposed to follow from all that.

Some of his premises are false and his logic is faulty. That there is what we call an "unsound" argument.

Moochie

17th August 2008, 02:36 PM

Faolan

17th August 2008, 03:03 PM

The only thing it proved was that those who knowingly, or more likely unknowingly, cannot think for themselves due to a set of rules, ideals, and/or beliefs, would select the answers correctly to reach the conclusion that God exists. As many (not all) people who thoroughly believe this generally do not have the desire to challenge or acknowledge that other possibilities and explanations are out there. For them it is "The Word" and nothing else reigns supreme and those who think otherwise are going to Hell.

However, when presented with those who thoroughly believe in "The Word" it is a very trying and amusing conversation/argument. I find that selective hearing reigns supreme as what is said from the "non-Christian" speaker is generally mentally filtered by the "Christian" speaker.

As for Disney, that was amusing.

Ron_Tomkins

17th August 2008, 05:58 PM

As for Disney, that was amusing.

The message I get from that is something along the lines of: "Fine. If you don't want to believe everything I say without questioning it, then go to your Disney Land, world of fantasy and keep being a naive child" :D

Clintsc9

17th August 2008, 06:15 PM

It is a bit of a fun site. You have to go along with their loopy logic or get faced by a big "Exit" button. I found it several times. :)

Apparently because it is not OK to abuse kids for fun (no argument there) all of their loopy existence laws are for real (plenty of arguments there). Is that the child-abuse version of the ad-Hitlerium fallacy>

Brian-M

18th August 2008, 02:30 PM

What disturbed me most were all the emails in the "positive feedback" section from Christians who had lost their faith/losing their faith, but had it restored by this site.

I thought to myself that somebody should point out the flaws in their logic, and then I realised that I was somebody (so to speak) :) , so I was up most of the night writing a reply. (No sleep, aargh!)

I doubt he'll post it on his negative feedback page, so I thought I'll post a copy of the email I sent here, so at least somebody might read it. (Shame for all that wasted time gone for nothing.) If he replies, I'll post them here too.

Sye,

Put simply, your proof of God comes to this...
a) A rational universe cannot exist without God.
b) We live in a rational universe.
c) Therefore God must exist.

I can accept (b) as true, but what about (a)?

Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that a rational universe cannot exist without God.

What evidence do you put forward to support this assumption? As far as I can tell, little more than a vague insistence that "immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist", adding only that "universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature", without giving any solid foundation for this assertion.

Logic, math and science are human-created conceptual tools employed for our own understanding. They have no inherent existence outside our own minds (and have changed over time as our understanding improved). The fact these tools can be used to accurately describe the behaviour and working of the universe proves only that the universe behaves in a consistent, predictable manner.

Are you claiming that without God, the universe would be random and chaotic? Or that we'd be mindless simpletons? If so, please explain why and provide some valid supporting evidence. Otherwise, your "proof" is no proof at all.

As for morality, what makes you think that this doesn't stem naturally an indifferent yet consistent universe? Morals are derived from our natural social instincts, which evolved to benefit the survival of communal species such as our own. Without moral behaviour, our communities would collapse, reducing our ability to survive. As a result, morality has a strong evolutionary basis. It's fundamentals are now being researched in a branch of psychology called "game theory".

Note: There's a logical fallacy built into your eight-steps. The question of things being "absolutely true" sometimes demands a subjective answer. Subjective truths cannot, by their inherent nature, be absolute truths, yet the choices provided are "absolutely true" and "false". In the case of a subjective truth, neither are valid responses.

(Since you take the effort to define and emphaphise "Absolute Truth", I assume you understand the difference between absolute, subjective and relative truths.)

Here are my responses to your questions directed at atheist "worldviews".

Q: If there is no God, where did the universe come from?
A: I don't know. Our understanding of the universe is not yet advanced enough to answer that question with any confidence. Incidently, your own "worldview" adds nothing to this except a postulation that an intelligent entity (whom we have no proof exists) was behind it all. (Genesis is notably lacking in precise cosmological data.)

Given a choice between believing in a rational universe we don't fully understand formed by natural processes, or a rational universe we don't yet fully understand formed by an magical super-being, the first choice would appear to be more rational.

Q: How do you justify universal, immaterial, unchanging laws in your version of the universe?
A: Why would they need to be justified? I don't understand this question.

Q: What gives humans dignity over any other advanced primordial slime? Why do you attend the funeral of a human, but not have a funeral for a fly or a virus or a cancerous cell?
A: Emotional attachment. People sometimes hold funerals for their pets. Unlike flies and cancerous cells, people form strong emotional attachments to people and pets.

And your question on Empiricism...
Q: By which of your senses did you come to know that all knowledge is verified by the senses?
A: None. This philosophy is unverified, and by it's own tenants should be discarded if found to conflict with verifiable evidence, but no such evidence has yet been found. All theories and mathematical proofs are created by human minds, and subject to human flaws, assumptions and errors. The only way to truly verify these intellectual constructions is to test them against reality. If a theory can't be (or hasn't yet been) tested, then the possibility for error should be admitted. We cannot go through life without forming theories or making logical assumptions, but whenever theory conflicts with reality, it's theory that's flawed.
(Note: Verification by "senses" also includes use of scientific equipment.)

Now that I've answered your questions, will you answer mine?
(I'm basing my questions/statements on the assumption of your absolute belief in the accurate, infallible nature of the Bible, as evidenced by the statements on your site.)

You say on your site:
> How ludicrous it would be to say to the creator of the universe:
> "Prove to me that you exist, then I will bow down to worship you."

Then why does God feel compelled to prove himself so often in the Bible? In Exodus 7:3, for example he announces his intention to harden the Pharos heart against releasing the Israelites, so he would have cause to "multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt". Afterwards he feels it necessary to make it rain enough bread to feed the Israelites for forty years (just think how welcome that would be in the starving parts of Africa right now; Exodus 16:11-15, Exodus 16:35). Why did Jesus perform his miracles, if not to prove himself the saviour?

The Bible lists thousands of occasions where God provides unquestionable empirical evidence of his power, so why not continue to do so today? Has God's basic nature changed from biblical times? If he wanted us to worship him, why not halt the sun in the sky as he did in Joshua 10:13? If he can stop the Earth from rotating for a day, this would provide undeniable evidence of his existence, and bring in billions of new believers.

If the only way to avoid Hell is belief in Christ, then wouldn't condemning billions of men, women and children to eternal relentless torture simply by refusing to demonstrate his existence be a far worse crime than all the horrors committed by men throughout history combined?

If he has repeatedly proved his existence in the past (and according to The Bible he did), then the argument we need to take him on faith alone is groundless.

You also say...
> No doubt you have heard much evidence for the textual validity of the Bible.
You mean like the part where God says that hares chew the cud like cows, and birds/insects have four legs? (Leviticus 11:6, Leviticus 11:20-23). There are websites which list thousands of errors, flaws and contradictions in the bible. The textual validity of The Bible is a myth.

For example, here's a few contradictions:

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. - 2 Kings 8:26
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. - 2 Chronicles 22:2

God is seen and heard Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/ Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

God is the author of evil Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
God is not the author of evil 1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13

See here for more:
http://skepticsannotedbible.com/index.htm
http://www.evilbible.com

You say...
> We use rational thought, therefore we can know
> that the Bible is true. Attempting to use logic to
> try to disprove the only possible source for logic
> would be self-refuting.
You still haven't proven that The Bible is the only possible source of logic, or the source of any kind of logic except the circular kind.

You say...
> If you are not a Christian I ask: What is your ultimate authority?
> Most 'unbelievers' have never given this question much thought
> but the answer is often: "My own human reason." My question
> then is: "By what authority do you use human reason as your
> ultimate authority? "Um...my human reason?" This logic is
> entirely circular!
'Unbelievers' who have never given the question much thought would be unlikely to notice you've switched definitions for "authority" from one question to the next. In the first question it appears you mean it to say "authoritative opinion; intellectual influence". In the second question, it appears you mean it to say "derived or delegated power; authorisation". No wonder the poor unbeliever gets confused! Personal authority (in the first sense) needs no authority (in the second sense) beyond consistency (both internal and external).

You say...
> If people actually did what they often really wanted
> to do, and did not submit to higher authority, there
> would be anarchy. If, for instance, someone decided
> by their own reason and authority to do an evil act,
> there would be no reason to stop, since to them it
> would by definition be right and true.
Even without the "authority" of The Bible to fall back upon, sociopaths who lack instinctive inhibitions against immoral acts would still be constrained to a degree in their actions by the legal and social restrictions of the community in which they live. (They would tend to do the right thing to avoid imprisonment and/or being outcast, even if they see no moral reason against it.) In case you haven't noticed, many people today actively use The Bible as an authority in defence of their own evil and immoral actions, or ignoring it's instructions altogether. There will always be bad people.

You say...
> First of all, the Bible as an ultimate authority
> is not arbitrary. It is written word that is
> entirely certain, and law-like in nature.
Not arbitrary?
According to the actual laws of The Bible, working on Sundays or insulting your parents results in the death peanalty (Exodus 35:2, Exodus 21:17). Jesus actually berated people for not killing their own children according to these laws (Matthew 15:4-6, Mark 7:10), and insisted that all the old laws be adhered to for all time (Matthew 5:17). Who follows these biblical laws today? If you pick-and-choose which laws to obey or not, which laws to enforce or not, and how they should be enforced, then the authority of The Bible is completely arbitrary and uncertain.

You say...
> And thirdly, the consequences of sure laws
> such as 'loving one's enemy,' 'turning the other
> cheek,' or 'treating others as you would have
> them treat you,' if universally adhered to, would
> not result in anarchy, but peace.
Any code of moral conduct, if universally adhered to, would not result in anarchy, but peace. You could follow the moral codes taught in Aseop's fables with a similar result. If it's moral standards you need, other religions such as Buddhism provide a far better source.

You say...
> The first thing we must consider when discussing
> this topic is that it is only because Christianity is
> true that we have a source for absolute morality
> by which we can condemn the actions of people
> who start unjust wars, and take innocent lives.

What about all the wars and murders of innocent lives God commanded of people? Isn't this somewhat hypocritical? For example, when the Israelites came to the promised land, at God's command the first thing they did was slaughter the inhabitants, who had done nothing except to live on the land of their ancestors, worshiping their own gods.

"All the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and he struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded." - Joshua 11:12

You say...
> Without absolute laws of morality, and a God who
> makes them possible, what one 'bag of matter' does
> to another 'bag of matter' is totally irrelevant.
It makes a big difference to the 'bags of matter' involved, their loved ones, and all those who posses the everyday non-absolute instinctive understanding of morality that most people are born with

You say...
> Romans 10 vs. 9 says:
> "If you confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord,"
> and believe in your heart that God raised him
> from the dead, you will be saved."
> THAT is how you become a Christian.
And here is what Jesus says in Luke 14:26...
"If anyone comes to me, and doesn't hate his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he can't be my disciple."
Apparently, you need to hold a hatred for your family and your own life before you can become a disciple of Jesus.

You say...
> Apologetics is not about giving evidence to the
> ignorant, but it is about bringing to light the
> foolishness of suppressing the truth. 'Evidential'
> arguments end up showing that God 'very likely,
> or 'most probably' exists, but they fall short of
> the biblical teaching that God's existence is
> inescapable.
Where can I find one of these "Evidential" arguments that prove God "very likely" exists? I'd like to see what constitutes likely "evidence" of his existence, because I've never seen or heard of anything even slightly convincing.

You say...
> Mormonism
> Q: What is your answer to the teaching in
> Revelation 22 vs. 18 that anyone who adds
> or takes away from the Bible will be dealt
> with plagues and banishment?
I don't have to be a Mormon to answer this one. Given the Mormons have been around for a couple of centuries without being dealt with by plagues and banishment, it means either:
a) The Book of Mormon is truth, or...
b) The Bible is wrong.

You say...
> Jehovah's Witness
> Q: Does your organization claim to be a prophet of God?
> Q: Since Deuteronomy 18 vs. 20 -22 describe a false
> prophet as one who gives a prophecy which does not
> come true, how do you answer the prophecies of the
> Jehovah's Witness of the end of the world in 1914, and
> the bodily return of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in 1925?
Wow, I'm shocked at this double-standard given the number of false prophecies in The Bible. But then again, Paul prophesies that all prophecies will fail (1 Corinthians 13:8), so in a way, it was prophesied this would happen.

Here are some prophecies Jesus gave his followers, telling how the second coming and the end of the world would happen within their lifetimes. Does this mean Jesus was a false prophet? (Could be; according to an earlier prophecy Jesus should have been named Immanuel. See Isaiah 7:4)

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to everyone according to his deeds.
Most certainly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom."
- (Matthew 16:27-28)

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous, and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we wouldn't have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Therefore you testify to yourselves that you are children of those who killed the prophets.
Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the judgment of Hell? Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets, wise men, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city; that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar.
Most certainly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation."
- (Matthew 23:29-36)

"He will send out his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his chosen ones from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
Now from the fig tree learn this parable. When its branch has now become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that the summer is near.
Even so you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Most certainly I tell you, this generation will not pass away, until all these things are accomplished.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."
- (Matthew 24:31-35)

And if you think the prophecies are a matter for interpretation...

"knowing this first, no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation.
For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit."
- (2 Peter 1:20-21)

So, do you still feel that your stance is the irrefutably rational one?

Just one last thing...

> Looking for another God is like looking for an
> answer other than '4' to the question 'what does
> 2 + 2 equal?' Sure there are many other answers
> to that math question but nobody has ever asked
> me "Well what about 5, or 9, or 3,286,428?"

Well, this is entierly beside the point, but if you free yourself from the limits of the one dimensional number-line taught in primary-school and start using two-dimensional numbers (called "complex" numbers by mathematicians), then 2+2 can legitimately equal anything between zero and four, depending on their vectors. So, in some cases, 2+2 could equal 3.141592654.
(If you're looking at an AC circuit with reactive components, for example, it reduces confusion if you know that variations in phase-angle means voltage in series adds-up according to "complex" math.)

Yours Sincerely,

Brian

Tanstaafl

18th August 2008, 02:55 PM

You can lead a fundie to logic, but you can't make him think.

I'll be interested to hear if he responds in any way though.

Good work there.

TiaH

18th August 2008, 02:59 PM

Apparently because it is not OK to abuse kids for fun (no argument there) all of their loopy existence laws are for real (plenty of arguments there). Is that the child-abuse version of the ad-Hitlerium fallacy>

Apparently this IS OK, cause the Catholic church has done everything in its power to support and shelter this behavior.

articulett

18th August 2008, 03:30 PM

The rebuttal website: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

Ron_Tomkins

18th August 2008, 03:33 PM

The rebuttal website: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

Oh yeah. I remember that site.

So clean. So neat. Like a small drop of clear fresh decontaminated water.
Tasty.

Toke

18th August 2008, 03:36 PM

LOL

MattusMaximus

18th August 2008, 04:39 PM

Is this site for real, or is it another spoof site like that one of Lancaster (???) Baptist Church?

18th August 2008, 07:38 PM

Nice letter, Brian.

There are a couple points I would like to address, however.

When you are talking about the issue of morality, I feel you are missing a good argument (not that the ones you use are not good, just that you cn add one more good one).
By which standard of morality does the author pick and choose his morals from the Bible, which is supposed to be the source of morality as instyructed by God himself?
Plainly, if the author has to pick and choose his own morals from the Bible, then the Bile cannot possible by a source for morality.
Since God did not give any other writings (according to Christian doctrine), then either the Bible (and by extension God) is not a source of morality, or else the author is in direct communication with God and recieves his instructions directly.

Secondly, you present the prophecy of a forthcoming "Immanuel" as though it relates to Jesus. The author of the website might well accept this, but the prophecy in Isaiah does not refer to Jesus. It most likely refers to a child born in Isaiah 8.
Which would explain why Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel.

The prophecy as related in Matthew seems to have been added as a way to validate Jesus as the true son of God. But it was merely an appropriation of a pre-existing prophecy.

borealys

18th August 2008, 08:21 PM

Wow. Was that ever vapid.

I don't see how it follows that, assuming there are universal, immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, morality, whatever, there must therefore be a god. Nor do I see how it follows that, assuming there is a god, it must be the Christian one. Their "Step 8" is the biggest darn non-sequitur I've ever seen.

articulett

18th August 2008, 08:41 PM

You have to have faith to understand it.

Semantics and pedantics can make any woo true if you have enough faith.

Brian-M

18th August 2008, 09:53 PM

;3957584']
When you are talking about the issue of morality, I feel you are missing a good argument (not that the ones you use are not good, just that you cn add one more good one).
By which standard of morality does the author pick and choose his morals from the Bible, which is supposed to be the source of morality as instyructed by God himself?

I didn't think of that one, good point. On the other hand, I'm not sure how I could have presented the argument. (As far as I'm aware, he regards The Bible as a self-consistent whole, with the a single absolute moral basis.)

;3957584']Secondly, you present the prophecy of a forthcoming "Immanuel" as though it relates to Jesus. The author of the website might well accept this, but the prophecy in Isaiah does not refer to Jesus. It most likely refers to a child born in Isaiah 8.
Which would explain why Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel.

The prophecy as related in Matthew seems to have been added as a way to validate Jesus as the true son of God. But it was merely an appropriation of a pre-existing prophecy.

Ah. I was assuming from the start that parts of Jesus' character were created to fit in with Old Testament predictions, so I wasn't thinking of it that way. (I've tried to use the quotes in correct context, but my actual scriptural knowledge is almost non-existent, so I'm bound to make mistakes.)

articulett

18th August 2008, 10:31 PM

Jackalgirl

18th August 2008, 10:40 PM

Um...what would an irrational universe be like? (I guess it would be full of magic, like...uh...like the world the Bible describes...?) Isn't the presence of a rational universe proof (at least) that the Bible is not true?

It's sort of like those arguments that say that God has to exist because if certain fundamental constants weren't fundamental, the universe we know wouldn't exist.

But...it would be some other universe. If the past were different...the present would also be different! What an amazing insight!

not daSkeptic

18th August 2008, 11:03 PM

Um...what would an irrational universe be like?

An irrational universe would be full of pi.

Robaato

19th August 2008, 04:52 AM

For some reason I find the bible quote they have on the bottom of the page...amusing, in an ironic sort of way.

"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge; but he who hates correction is stupid."

Hmm.

Ron_Tomkins

19th August 2008, 06:47 AM

I think therefore I am.

Therefore, there is a God.

I mean, DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH!!!

AndyD

19th August 2008, 08:26 AM

Are you claiming that without God, the universe would be random and chaotic? Or that we'd be mindless simpletons? If so, please explain why and provide some valid supporting evidence. Otherwise, your "proof" is no proof at all.

Pfft, easy. Just look at those other universes that weren't created by God. They're a bleeding shambles. Planets standing still with suns revolving around them, sometimes. Random acts of gravity making daily life a right, royal pain. And then you get those days where some idiot of a planet just changes orbit at two in the afternoon on any date with a one in it and thumps smack into your house - if you could even call it a house after it's floated away and plunged back to aErth a few times this week alone.

Those uncreated universes are no fun at all.

Robaato

19th August 2008, 12:49 PM

I like this site better: Hundreds of Proofs of God's Existence
http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

(mentioned in "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins...)

Brian-M

19th August 2008, 02:28 PM

I got a reply, but I don't know what I should make of it...

This is the Postfix program at host webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.

The Postfix program

<contact@proofthatgodexists.org>: host
smtp.where.secureserver.net[64.202.166.12] said: 554 The message was
rejected because it contains prohibited virus or spam content (in reply to
end of DATA command)

Reporting-MTA: dns; webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
X-Postfix-Queue-ID: BEDCF1800303
X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822;
Arrival-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:59:59 +0000 (GMT)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; contact@proofthatgodexists.org
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host smtp.where.secureserver.net[64.202.166.12]
said: 554 The message was rejected because it contains prohibited virus or
spam content (in reply to end of DATA command)
I wonder what kind of spam filter they're using?

On the other hand, I was thinking it would be amusing to create a questionnaire of my own...

Question 1
Is it immoral to kill children for disobeying or cursing their parents?
a) NO. (Link to psychiatric help line)
b) YES. (Go to question 2)

Question 2
As the Bible commands (in both testaments) that children be killed for disobeying or cursing their parents, would you agree the Bible issues immoral commands?
1. YES. (Go to Question 3)
2. NO. (Go to Question 1)
3. More Info. (Display relevant passages)

Anyone got ideas for more questions?

TiaH

19th August 2008, 03:05 PM

I got a reply, but I don't know what I should make of it...

I wonder what kind of spam filter they're using?

On the other hand, I was thinking it would be amusing to create a questionnaire of my own...

Question 1
Is it immoral to kill children for disobeying or cursing their parents?
a) NO. (Link to psychiatric help line)
b) YES. (Go to question 2)

Question 2
As the Bible commands (in both testaments) that children be killed for disobeying or cursing their parents, would you agree the Bible issues immoral commands?
1. YES. (Go to Question 3)
2. NO. (Go to Question 1)
3. More Info. (Display relevant passages)

Anyone got ideas for more questions?

Or, you could ask about slavery, which the bible supports.
Or genocide, which the bible supports.
Or carrying things on the Sabbath...yes, you can be killed for that too!
As a matter of fact, it seems that the number one punishment of choice in the bible is...wait for it...you guessed it.....DEATH!

Ron_Tomkins

19th August 2008, 03:54 PM

I like this site better: Hundreds of Proofs of God's Existence
http://godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

(mentioned in "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins...)

Hahaha, that's phenomenal.

I feel like making one of my own.

But not now... I need time.

Ron_Tomkins

19th August 2008, 03:57 PM

I got a reply, but I don't know what I should make of it...

I wonder what kind of spam filter they're using?

On the other hand, I was thinking it would be amusing to create a questionnaire of my own...

Question 1
Is it immoral to kill children for disobeying or cursing their parents?
a) NO. (Link to psychiatric help line)
b) YES. (Go to question 2)

Question 2
As the Bible commands (in both testaments) that children be killed for disobeying or cursing their parents, would you agree the Bible issues immoral commands?
1. YES. (Go to Question 3)
2. NO. (Go to Question 1)
3. More Info. (Display relevant passages)

Anyone got ideas for more questions?

Dude, that's awesome. I'd like to contribute some more to that but I'll have to get back at you with ideas cause right now I'm kind of in a rush.

Third Eye Open

19th August 2008, 05:20 PM

Brian-M

19th August 2008, 05:44 PM

Don't forget the bit where Lot offers his daughters to be gang-raped by an angry/amorous mob. (Later, his daughters get him drunk and have sex with him. Great moral values in that family!)

matty.the.damned

19th August 2008, 06:28 PM

I like the bit where god sends a couple bears to rip apart 40 children for making fun of a bald man... can't remember where that was.

Also there is a part where a woman is gang-raped all night and then her body cut into pieces and mailed to various people. Don't know if that one was 'condoned by god' but I like to bring it up to people and ask if the want their kids reading that filth.

According to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com) the bald man was Elijah and this sterling example of God's infinite love is documented in 2 Kings 2:23-24.

No wonder Pat Buchanan is so uptight.

Glory!

MtD

MattusMaximus

20th August 2008, 08:01 PM

Um...what would an irrational universe be like?

Try studying quantum mechanics and then you'll get an idea of how damned "irrational" the universe really is! In this context, I use the terms rational & irrational to define how we think the universe should operate (rational), and when it doesn't operate according to our pre-conceived notions most people (including, to a degree, me) label the universe as irrational.

It's interesting that you bring up "other" universes, as some areas of cutting-edge theoretical physics are pursuing this as a serious question. No kidding.

PS: For anyone who isn't a physicist and wants to read up on QM, I suggest "The Quantum World" by Ford. Well-written and readable, it's a good starter book on the topic.

PPS: This whole discussion reminds me of an argument between Einstein and Bohr concerning QM. Apparently, Einstein stated that the non-deterministic and random/uncertain nature of QM bothered him so much that he rejected QM with his famous phrase, "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the universe." To which Niels Bohr responded, "Einstein, you should stop telling God what to do!" :)

Victor Meldrew

21st August 2008, 05:44 AM

Madalch

21st August 2008, 11:21 AM

The philosopher Stephen Law has been debating with Sye, the owner of the site, for a few weeks now - here's the link to his blog postings on the subject (you'll have to scroll down to the bottom for the start)

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sinner%20ministries'%20%22proof%20of%20the%20exist ence%20of%20god%22?updated-max=2008-08-01T15%3A19%3A00Z&max-results=20 (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sinner%20ministries%27%20%22proof%20of%20the%20exi stence%20of%20god%22?updated-max=2008-08-01T15%3A19%3A00Z&max-results=20)

The stupid! It burns!!

The goggles, they do nothing!!

Sye keeps repeating that logic only exists because God made it that way, and that is the proof of God, and you can't use logic without admitting God exists, because logic only exists because God made it that way.....

...and over, and over, and over.....

Brian-M

21st August 2008, 02:15 PM

I tried re-posting my letter as an email attachment, and this time it got through. Here's the response I got...

Hey Brian,

Thanks for your e-mail. My e-mail volume has increased of late, and yours is just way to long for me to have the time to do it justice. If you'd like to re-send it one point at a time, I will try to respond in a timley fashion, otherwise it will take me a long time to respond to your original mail, if I ever.

Later,

Sye

I knew my letter was a long one, that's why I put the main points at the very beginning. I've re-sent him the first part of my email. I'll wait until he responds to that before re-sending my comments on his use of the term "Absolute Truth".

Moi.Frenchie

21st August 2008, 05:03 PM

WHY would god use fallible people to write an infallible book? Why didn't he just write it himself? Maybe he relied too much on txt spk. :confused:

syetenb

21st August 2008, 06:52 PM

I knew my letter was a long one, that's why I put the main points at the very beginning.

It's still too long :D

Cheers,

Sye

juniper_ann

21st August 2008, 08:58 PM

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/no-morality.php
“If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him?”

Oh, you mean like when God tells his followers to rape the women of conquered people? Okay, yeah, you’re right. God is an evil bastard.

Ron_Tomkins

22nd August 2008, 09:36 AM

syetenb

22nd August 2008, 03:03 PM

Why has no one bothered to explain Sye that "The Impossibility of the Contrary" which seems to be his main "building block" argument is a very well known logicall fallacy by the name of "Either-Or Fallacy" which once is understood, can completely bring down whole structures of thinking that were considered rational up to that moment? That's what I'm wondering.

I'm wondering by what logical standard you call ANYTHING fallacious, how you account for that standard, and why that standard necessarily applies to my argument? Hardly makes sense to appeal to a universal, abstract, invariant standard of logic, which your worldview cannot account for.

These people waste too much time chit chatting nonsense that only makes things even more confusing.

Again, by what logical standard do you call ANYTHING 'nonsense,' how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?

What people like Sye need is getting to know people such as Feynman and Dennet. People whose personality alone proves that you don't need to have a bunch of religious BS in your mind to be an intelligent, kind, inspired and creative individual who additionally to all that, explains things in a clear-as-pure-water concise way.

Problem is you have no absolute standard by which you can call ANYTHING 'intelligent,' or 'kind,' and cannot account for 'creativity,' or 'inspiration,' according to your worldview.

Cheers,

Sye

matty.the.damned

22nd August 2008, 03:09 PM

He who loves discipline loves knowledge. He who hates correction is stupid.

Proverbs 12:1

Got that from your website just 30 seconds ago, Sye. ;)

MtD

Arthur Denton

22nd August 2008, 03:13 PM

The rebuttal website: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... You're responsible if I die from laughter, honestly. Thank you for the link. Hieiahehahaheiaheahaa....

Madalch

22nd August 2008, 04:14 PM

Hardly makes sense to appeal to a universal, abstract, invariant standard of logic, which your worldview cannot account for. Problem is you have no absolute standard by which you can call ANYTHING 'intelligent,' or 'kind,' and cannot account for 'creativity,' or 'inspiration,' according to your worldview.

Your worldview can't account for it, either. Saying "Goddiddit" is hardly accounting for things.

You could say, "That's just the way God thinks", but I can counter with "That's just the way the universe works." Your reasoning is no better than mine, but mine doesn't multiply entities needlessly.

not daSkeptic

22nd August 2008, 04:26 PM

You could say, "That's just the way God thinks", but I can counter with "That's just the way the universe works." Your reasoning is no better than mine, but mine doesn't multiply entities needlessly.

Occam was a bright fellow. And you're right, the God argument requires a number of additional assumptions -- that God exists, that he thinks, that he thinks a certain way, that humans are able to understand his thinking, etc. -- but your counter-argument assumes only that the universe is.

Jontg

22nd August 2008, 05:10 PM

I love what he tries to do with his morality argument; appealing to the instinctive revulsion most of us have to raping a child is intended to shut down higher brain functions and force the user to accept one of the two options he presents without taking the time to think and take the obvious third option. Unfortunately, even if you accept the petty morality that drives this poor specimen, I could still present a scenario where even that could be considered right. Bioshock fans, try picturing Frank Fontaine saying this:
"Alright, kid, I'm through playing wit ya. I just realized I don't need some fancy mind control to make ya do what I want. See, you're just the kinda sap I like best: one who thinks he's some kinda hero. Well, hero, you're not the only tool I got; I got me an army of fire-shooting, teleporting, hook-handed loonies down here--and more importantly? Yeah, I got one more thing: I got me a big red button. And if you don't want Tenenbaum, her little brats, and the whole [freak]in' world to see what happens when I press it, then here's what you're gonna do..."
EDIT: Yes, I know, I'm a complete sociopath.

syetenb

22nd August 2008, 05:22 PM

You could say, "That's just the way God thinks", but I can counter with "That's just the way the universe works."

Problem is, you cannot resolve the invariant non-particular properties of the universe, with the varying particlular ones. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the laws of logic, or science, will be valid 5 seconds from now?

Your reasoning is no better than mine, but mine doesn't multiply entities needlessly.

Problem is, in order to be able to assess whether ones reasoning is 'no better' than someone else's, one needs an absolute standard of reasoning, which your worldview cannot provide.

How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?

Cheers,

Sye

syetenb

22nd August 2008, 05:25 PM

Occam was a bright fellow. And you're right, the God argument requires a number of additional assumptions -- that God exists, that he thinks, that he thinks a certain way, that humans are able to understand his thinking, etc.

Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed. ~ Paul Manata

syetenb

22nd August 2008, 05:28 PM

if you don't want Tenenbaum, her little brats, and the whole [freak]in' world to see what happens when I press it, then here's what you're gonna do..."

Actually, that's why I said 'for fun,' to eliminate sociopathic hypotheticals like this one.

Cheers,

Sye

Madalch

22nd August 2008, 07:06 PM

Problem is, you cannot resolve the invariant non-particular properties of the universe, with the varying particlular ones. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the laws of logic, or science, will be valid 5 seconds from now?
We assume that they do because they've been valid so far.
Problem is, in order to be able to assess whether ones reasoning is 'no better' than someone else's, one needs an absolute standard of reasoning, which your worldview cannot provide.

What do you know about my worldview?

Reasoning works because it gives an adequate description of the universe. That's all that is needed.

As far as God goes, we have no need of that hypothesis.

syetenb

22nd August 2008, 07:50 PM

We assume that they do because they've been valid so far.

On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the future will be like the past? To say that the future will be like the past, because the future has been like the past, in the past, is question begging.

Reasoning works because it gives an adequate description of the universe.

Um, how do you know? You FIRST have to assume that your reasoning is valid in order to determine whether any description is 'adequate,' which, again, is question begging.

As far as God goes, we have no need of that hypothesis.

Well, your hypothesis sure ain't cutting it.

Cheers,

Sye

Madalch

22nd August 2008, 09:32 PM

On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the future will be like the past? To say that the future will be like the past, because the future has been like the past, in the past, is question begging.
No, it is not begging the question- that is simple inductive reasoning.

I can't explain WHY the rules of logic work, but I can observe that they do. Your postulate that logic can only work if God exists is a non sequitor. Your demands for an explanation for why logic works wil get nowhere, but rest assured that "Because God said so" is an insufficient explanation for them.

I will not waste logic on an obstinate man. As they say, one cannot reason with anyone whose first line of argument is that reason doesn't matter, nor can on argue with one who claims that he's the only one entitled to use logic.

Jontg

22nd August 2008, 10:08 PM

Ron_Tomkins

22nd August 2008, 10:30 PM

I'm wondering by what logical standard you call ANYTHING fallacious, how you account for that standard, and why that standard necessarily applies to my argument? Hardly makes sense to appeal to a universal, abstract, invariant standard of logic, which your worldview cannot account for.

Wow. I didn't know you actually posted here. Welcome to the forum. Well, "by what logical standards do I call anything fallacious"? I don't know what kind of question that is. Lets see, by what kind of logical standards do you, Sye, call anything fallacious? In other words, how many kinds of "logical standards" are there?. Do you even know what the "either-or fallacy" means?. Do you know what it consists of?

Problem is you have no absolute standard by which you can call ANYTHING 'intelligent,' or 'kind,' and cannot account for 'creativity,' or 'inspiration,' according to your worldview.

And by what logical standard do you draw that conclusion? That to me just sounds like a very personal opinion, but do you have anything that you base that observation on? And more importantly, have you actually checked out these people I mentioned? Dennet, Feynman, Sagan.

Sounds to me like you're playing the "by what logical standard game".
That's an easy one

Person a: I think that the world is flat
Person b: Sir, actually, the world is round. There have been studies...
Person a: Excuse me, but by what logical standard do you draw the conclusion that the world is round?

Madalch

22nd August 2008, 11:18 PM

Person a: I think that the world is flat
Person b: Sir, actually, the world is round. There have been studies...
Person a: Excuse me, but by what logical standard do you draw the conclusion that the world is round?

Or rather, A: The world is flat.
B: That doesn't make any sense.
A: Sense? Sense is only defined in terms of a flat world. You can't have sense in a round world view!

Ron_Tomkins

22nd August 2008, 11:27 PM

Or rather, A: The world is flat.
B: That doesn't make any sense.
A: Sense? Sense is only defined in terms of a flat world. You can't have sense in a round world view!

:D

syetenb

23rd August 2008, 06:51 AM

No, it is not begging the question- that is simple inductive reasoning.

TO assume that the future will be like the past is to reason inductively, what I'm asking though, is what is your basis for assuming that the future WILL BE like the past?

I can't explain WHY the rules of logic work, but I can observe that they do.

Perhaps you can tell me where, so that I can have a look as well. Perhaps you can also tell me how you come to this conclusion without FIRST assuming that the laws of logic (and your reasoning about them) are valid?

Your demands for an explanation for why logic works wil get nowhere, but rest assured that "Because God said so" is an insufficient explanation for them.

I'm not even asking you why logic works, I'm simply asking you how you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws according to your worldview?

I will not waste logic on an obstinate man.

By what standard of logic do you call me 'obstinate,' how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to me?

As they say, one cannot reason with anyone whose first line of argument is that reason doesn't matter

That is not my argument at all. I, in fact, insist on reason, the difference is that I can account for the preconditions for reasoning, i.e. the laws of logic, whereas you cannot.

nor can on argue with one who claims that he's the only one entitled to use logic.

Another straw-man. I am simply asking for you to account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview.

Cheers,

Sye

syetenb

23rd August 2008, 07:14 AM

Hmm, point taken--but you still attempt to frame the question within a right/wrong construct which I hold to be artificial.
Would the notion of raping a child, much less enjoying it, sicken and revolt me? Yes, because I was conditioned by my family and my society to empathize with other living things to the extent that it's difficult to contemplate harming a human being without mentally experiencing the harm myself.
Is such an act reprehensible? Of course! The mental aberrations caused by childhood sexual abuse are well-documented, and the physical damage is massive and possibly fatal, depending on the age of the child. The result, if not simply a corpse, is a crippled and shell-shocked individual who, in the worst cases, can neither reproduce nor contribute meaningfully to society--to say nothing of the emotional repercussions experienced by anyone who becomes aware of their past. Just thinking about the idea causes me considerable distress; I am, in fact, crying as I type this.

Indeed it is harmful, reprehensible, and causes mental aberrations, and I empathize with your distress, what you must realize however, is that without an absoltue standard, 'harm,' 'reprehensiblility,' and 'mental aberrations' are equally subjective. Without an absolute standard the molester could say that NOT molesting children is harmful, reprehensible, and causes mental aberrations, and you lose all argument against their position. Furthermore, without an absolute standard of right and wrong, one could not even say that 'harm, reprehensibility, and the causing of mental aberrations' are even wrong! Why not do those things?

Should anyone who commits such an act be shunned, even punished? By all means; anyone lacking the conditioning I and most other humans received as children would be fundamentally flawed, maybe even as damaged as his victims, and incapable of functioning in society. As we have yet to find an effective means of rehabilitation, at this point in time the best thing to do with the poor fellow is to lock him up.

But who gets to determine what 'proper conditioning' is? What if molestation comes into vogue, and YOUR conditioning is considered to be 'fundamentally flawed?' What right do yo have to impose your morality and conditioning on anyone else? Isn't that the very thing that Christianity is so often indicted for?

But is it wrong? Fundamentally, inherently wrong? I say no, because for it to be wrong requires that some intelligent being with the authority to dictate absolute morality--in other words, a god--has decreed it so. Your argument only works if one presupposes that right and wrong are as absolute and immutable as hot and cold, and that presupposes the existence of a god who made it so. In other words, your argument is circular.

With that standard, you must realize that YOUR position is equally circular. Saying that something is NOT wrong, because there is no God, also begs the question. The difference is, you must concede, that an omniscient, omnipotent God could reveal to us some moral absolutes, in such a way that we can be certain of them, whereas you have no escape from your circular argument.

What one needs to do is take a step back from this argument, and think about telling a victim of child molestation that what happened to them was not 'wrong.' Surely it is only an excercise in philosophical gymnastics, and in an intentional avoidance of the implications, that one takes such a position

Cheers,

Sye

syetenb

23rd August 2008, 07:21 AM

Wow. I didn't know you actually posted here. Welcome to the forum.

Thanks.

Well, "by what logical standards do I call anything fallacious"? I don't know what kind of question that is. Lets see, by what kind of logical standards do you, Sye, call anything fallacious?

By the perfect standard of God's reasoning. Now, what is your standard of logic, and why should anyone adhere to it?

Sounds to me like you're playing the "by what logical standard game".
That's an easy one

Person a: I think that the world is flat
Person b: Sir, actually, the world is round. There have been studies...
Person a: Excuse me, but by what logical standard do you draw the conclusion that the world is round?

I do not see the resolution to your dilemma there. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that your senses, the laws of logic, or the reasoning with which you interpret them, are valid?

Cheers,

Sye

Alareth

23rd August 2008, 07:44 AM

Random acts of gravity

* Alareth adds another entry on the list of potential names for a band.

Ron_Tomkins

23rd August 2008, 09:40 AM

By the perfect standard of God's reasoning. Now, what is your standard of logic, and why should anyone adhere to it?

Aaaahhhhh! Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere.

What God?
How do you know that there is a God?
What is God's reasoning? How do you know it's God's reasoning and not other people who believe in God's reasoning?
(And I will answer your question now)...

I do not see the resolution to your dilemma there. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that your senses, the laws of logic, or the reasoning with which you interpret them, are valid?

Yes, well, you do understand Sye, that you're getting metaphysical when you respond like that, don't you? If you begin by questioning the senses that we have, then any further discussion with you is a waste of time. We do live in a world where we take for granted the many aspects of reality that we have verified so many times, because if we went around questioning the very obvious aspects of reality, we would go insane.

I proceed with the assumption that my senses are valid because I have nothing but the evidence that they are real and grant me acces to the reality that I live in. But not only that. If we extrapolate it to the sense of sight, for example, we know that what we see is real, but we also know that not everything that we see is real. We know there are things such as optical illusions and mirages. Now, how do we know this? How do we tell the difference between the real stuff and the optical illusions? Because we use different converging sources of evidence to test this hipotesis. If I see a hammer, I know that it's a hammer, not only because I can see it, but because I can touch it (sense of touch), smell it (sense of smell) hear it when it drops (sense of hearing) and moreover, other people can see it, touch it and smell it too.

But then someone like you, Sye, will take the whole paragraph I just wrote and say "Well, what is real? What if everything was an illusion? A shared illusion". You begin getting metaphysical. Now, there's nothing wrong with that when we want to excercise our ability to be philosophical, but other than that it's useless because you're dealing with the very kind of hipotesis you will never be able to prove, precisely because of its nature. (What evidence do you have that there is no invisible pink dinosaur sleeping in your closet right now? He could be there right now. By the way, you can't see it so you will just have to take my word for granted)

So if this is about you wanting to believe the very thing you can't prove or disprove, then knock yourself out. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you're gonna convince people with the very well known metaphysical arguments (trust me, we're very familiar with them), which are in the end, the only thing you have. The only weapons you have in an argument. Because you do know you have no evidence and no reliable arguments to support your claims.

Jontg

23rd August 2008, 12:51 PM

Indeed it is harmful, reprehensible, and causes mental aberrations, and I empathize with your distress, what you must realize however, is that without an absoltue standard, 'harm,' 'reprehensiblility,' and 'mental aberrations' are equally subjective. Without an absolute standard the molester could say that NOT molesting children is harmful, reprehensible, and causes mental aberrations, and you lose all argument against their position. Furthermore, without an absolute standard of right and wrong, one could not even say that 'harm, reprehensibility, and the causing of mental aberrations' are even wrong! Why not do those things?

The problem is, there is an evidenciary standard that appears to indicate that child molestation causes physical and mental harm; this is not a matter of opinion, but of data and of the prevailing consensus that the data supports. We instinctively lash out at the child molestor for the same reason we lash out at the murderer and the thief: the numbers prove that they are a detriment to the species, and nature has thus selected for hardwired prohibitions against, and instinctive revulsion to, such acts.

But who gets to determine what 'proper conditioning' is? What if molestation comes into vogue, and YOUR conditioning is considered to be 'fundamentally flawed?' What right do yo have to impose your morality and conditioning on anyone else? Isn't that the very thing that Christianity is so often indicted for?

Nobody has the right to impose their beliefs on others, but we all do it every time we open our mouths; the only reason we aren't in a constant state of war with every other human on Earth is because we're also wired to tolerate minor deviances and even agree to disagree to a certain extent. If you want proof of that, consider how much damage our society is suffering at the hands of people with a sub-normal level of tolerance. Fortunately, I don't need to, since most people's behavioral patterns are in line with mine when it comes to these bare essentials. But if society somehow altered itself to the point where it was hip to rape small children, I'd probably try to do so anyway--my compunctions against being a nuisance are weak anyway, and they're quite easily overridden by more important directives, such as preventing the extinction of mankind.

With that standard, you must realize that YOUR position is equally circular. Saying that something is NOT wrong, because there is no God, also begs the question. The difference is, you must concede, that an omniscient, omnipotent God could reveal to us some moral absolutes, in such a way that we can be certain of them, whereas you have no escape from your circular argument.

Indeed he could, if you could prove he existed. However, your only proof is the very argument we're currently debating; question begging at its finest. I, however, as an atheist (well, technically a radical Zen Buddhist), start with a blank slate, making no presumptions re: the existence of supernatural beings and divine edicts. Instead, I have formed my worldview based on previous experience and the evidence I and my peers have gathered.

What one needs to do is take a step back from this argument, and think about telling a victim of child molestation that what happened to them was not 'wrong.' Surely it is only an excercise in philosophical gymnastics, and in an intentional avoidance of the implications, that one takes such a position

Far from it; in fact, the tendency of the traumatized to take up spirituality is in my mind part of the damage inflicted. If asked, I'd tell him just what I told you: that he should pity the person who did this to him, because odds are he's in almost as much pain. I would tell him that wishing pain and death on his attacker is the animal inside him talking, and that he, as a human, can be better than that. That he should hope, not for revenge or justice or whatever you want to call the ghoulish atonement rituals of the modern penal system, but for an end to both their pain.
The fact that the rapist is sick no more excuses what he did than rabies excuses a dog for biting its master, and killing or imprisoning him is no more the right ending for his story than euthanasia is for the dog's--it's just the only way we can save others from being hurt. The medieval surgeon saved many lives by simply finding infected tissue and hacking it off, but we know better ways now, and someday, I promise, our children's children will look back at what we do to the sick and aberrant and wonder what the hell we thought we were accomplishing.

syetenb

23rd August 2008, 01:54 PM

The problem is, there is an evidenciary standard that appears to indicate that child molestation causes physical and mental harm;

So what, why should anyone agree to, or adhere to that standard?

this is not a matter of opinion, but of data and of the prevailing consensus that the data supports. We instinctively lash out at the child molestor for the same reason we lash out at the murderer and the thief: the numbers prove that they are a detriment to the species

1. What is the absolute atandard by which you determine what is, and is not, detrimental to the species.
2. Why should anyone adhere to that standard?

my compunctions against being a nuisance are weak anyway, and they're quite easily overridden by more important directives, such as preventing the extinction of mankind.

By what standard do you gauge the level of importance of preventing extinction to mankind, and why should anyone adhere to that standard?

Indeed he could, if you could prove he existed.

What does my ability to prove anything have to do with whether or not God could do something???

I, however, as an atheist (well, technically a radical Zen Buddhist), start with a blank slate, making no presumptions re: the existence of supernatural beings and divine edicts.

Sure you make presumptions. You presume that God does not exist, and that logic, science, and morality can exist without God.

Instead, I have formed my worldview based on previous experience and the evidence I and my peers have gathered.

How do you know that your experiences, or the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid?

If asked, I'd tell him just what I told you: that he should pity the person who did this to him, because odds are he's in almost as much pain.

What if the molester is not at all in pain, but just happens to like getting his/her jollies molesting children?

I would tell him that wishing pain and death on his attacker is the animal inside him talking, and that he, as a human, can be better than that.

Um, aren't humans just evolved animals according to your worldview?

That he should hope, not for revenge or justice or whatever you want to call the ghoulish atonement rituals of the modern penal system, but for an end to both their pain.

Why even end pain? Is pain wrong?

The fact that the rapist is sick

Why do you get to call the rapist 'sick?' For all you know he/she could be exhibiting proper behaviour.

and killing or imprisoning him is no more the right ending for his story than euthanasia is for the dog's--it's just the only way we can save others from being hurt.

Again, in your worldview 'hurt' is subjective, as is your reasoning for saving others from being 'hurt.' You try to avoid absolute morality in your argument against child molestation, but the simple fact is, that if morality can be stipulated, anyone can stipulate their own, and you have not argument against them.

Cheers,

Sye

syetenb

23rd August 2008, 02:25 PM

What God?

There only is one God.

How do you know that there is a God?

He has revealed Himself to us.

What is God's reasoning?

Universal, abstract, invariant, and perfect.

How do you know it's God's reasoning and not other people who believe in God's reasoning?

Because He has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it.

(And I will answer your question now)...
I imagine that you mean in your next post, cause you certainly did not answer it in this post. What is your standard of logic, and why should anyone adhere to it?

If you begin by questioning the senses that we have, then any further discussion with you is a waste of time.

What?!? So anyone can just say anything, and claim that it is true because they have sensed it, and their senses must be reliable???

We do live in a world where we take for granted the many aspects of reality that we have verified so many times, because if we went around questioning the very obvious aspects of reality, we would go insane.

Exactly, you take for granted the validity of your senses, your reasoning, and the laws of logic, without giving credit to the only possible justification for any of them. That is one reason that you stand guilty before God - you take Him for granted.

I proceed with the assumption that my senses are valid because I have nothing but the evidence that they are real and grant me acces to the reality that I live in.

So in other words, you sense that your senses are valid??? You don't see the problem there???

But not only that. If we extrapolate it to the sense of sight, for example, we know that what we see is real,

How?

How do we tell the difference between the real stuff and the optical illusions? Because we use different converging sources of evidence to test this hipotesis.

And how do you know that the reasoning with which you do this is itself valid?

If I see a hammer, I know that it's a hammer, not only because I can see it, but because I can touch it (sense of touch), smell it (sense of smell) hear it when it drops (sense of hearing) and moreover, other people can see it, touch it and smell it too.

How do you know that your senses, the senses of others, or the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid?

But then someone like you, Sye, will take the whole paragraph I just wrote and say "Well, what is real? What if everything was an illusion? A shared illusion".

Well, what is real? What if everything is an illusion? A shared illusion?

You begin getting metaphysical. Now, there's nothing wrong with that when we want to excercise our ability to be philosophical, but other than that it's useless because you're dealing with the very kind of hipotesis you will never be able to prove, precisely because of its nature.

This is only an assertion, prove this please.

(What evidence do you have that there is no invisible pink dinosaur sleeping in your closet right now?

Well, for one, if it's invisible, it can't be pink :D

He could be there right now. By the way, you can't see it so you will just have to take my word for granted)

Why?

So if this is about you wanting to believe the very thing you can't prove or disprove, then knock yourself out.

Prove that I cannot prove or disprove it please.

But don't fool yourself into thinking that you're gonna convince people with the very well known metaphysical arguments

It is not my intention, nor am I able to convince anyone of anything. It is the Christian position that you already know that God exists, but are 'suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans 1: 18-21).

Because you do know you have no evidence and no reliable arguments to support your claims.

Again, this is question begging. Please prove that I have no evidence or reliable arguments to support my claims. All evidence will be interpreted subject to our respective presuppostions, I have all kinds of evidence (your ability to reason for one), but you discount it at the outset because of your presuppostion that God does not exist. Problem is, you cannot account for your very ability to reason, according to your worldview.

Cheers,

Sye

articulett

23rd August 2008, 02:40 PM

Your world view is subjective too, Sye,-- you just pretend it's all coming from an invisible immeasurable guy that you have somehow deduced the "mind" of...

There is a universe and reality and objective truth that exists whether people believe in it or not... science turns out to be the best way to find that truth--it has a built-in error correcting mechanism that faith lacks.

Then there are beliefs and opinions about the universe that exist only in the minds of people--though they attribute them to assorted gods, thetans, demons, or other invisible immeasurable entities... there is an infinite variety of those sorts of thoughts... They are not "objective facts". Like preferences, they are dependent upon the people who have them.

But the truth just keeps being the truth no matter what people believe. Your beliefs are coming from inside your head as is your morality even if you believe it's infused from some divine force. The hijackers also believed that their "information" was coming from a divine source. So do our resident Scientologists, Jehovah Witnesses and the like. Schizophrenics imagine objective sources for their delusions and the "voices in their head". There is nothing in your words that makes your beliefs more "real".

"Right" and "wrong" are all words and terms used only by humans... they all require an "according to"-- they don't exist absent the human mind. The same with "good" or "bad". These are all subjective terms... and your god, morality, and beliefs are subjective too. Believers of assorted gods and faiths all get their beliefs subjectively even as they pat themselves on the backs for having some sort of "objective morality".

Logic is a tool we use to look beyond subjectivity. 2+2=4 no matter what you believe. Those are the kinds of things logic can help us discover. What's "good" or "bad" will always be the opinion of humans, and until it can be measured and quantified, it is not objective. Your verbiage is only good for spinning the delusion in your head that you have accessed some "higher truth". All the believers in delusional or superstitious things you don't believe in, do the same thing. It makes people feel like they "know" something "special"-- while knowing nothing real at all. Circular reasoning works, because circular reasoning works.

While it's true that each believer thinks that those who believe like they do are the "most moral"--Most nonbelievers don't share the same opinion about who the "most moral" are. They tend to prefer intelligence, kindness to real sentient beings, understanding, and humor over imagined "higher morality".

Even though in your minds, you believers each think that your fantastic morality and logic is "evident" "objectively". It's only evident in your own head. To us, you sound as full of yourself and deluded as those who believe in Karma/reincarnation or other gods or Scientology. You ought to endeavor to give us a reason to respect your pedantry more than we would respect believers in the above. So far, none of you have. Yet you all feel entitled to special respect that you would not show to such people.

So far you are arguing identically and as illogically as the truthers, homeopaths, astrologists, schizophrenics, and believers in faiths you don't share. To an outsider it just sounds arrogant, delusional, and vapid-- The only tool we have to find out what is true is objective evidence. Have you got any? --Evidence that is of higher quality than the believers of those things listed above, I mean. You might want to cut the insincere questions that you don't really want an answer to-- it doesn't go over well here, and makes you look dishonest as well as deluded and self-important. Instead, give us a reason why we should believe your "woo" (the true woo) over all the others that come to preach here.

Also, do you understand the difference between a fact and everything else (opinion, belief, judgment, preference, notion, motto, ideal, etc.?) Facts tend to be measurable on some level... they are the same for everyone no matter what they believe... just as the history of our planet will not change even when humans are gone-- neither will other objective facts. The earth will have existed even when it no longer does. The earth is a sphere whether you really, really believe it is flat or not... even if you believe in a god who said it is flat.... it's still not... it never was. Our sun was a star even before we invented the word star. Humans all share common ancestry whether you believe it or not... and the history behind that common ancestry is identical -- singularly so... no matter what assorted people have believed about it throughout humanity's existence.

You seem to want respect for some pretty lame "opinions" that you don't realize are "opinions" without offering the same respect of others-- as most believers are won't to do--because they often mistake their opinions for "the truth". If you desire conversation (and I don't think you do-- because you need your faith to be true and that makes biting from the "tree of knowledge" scary)--then you need to learn the difference.

Although your invisible friend and your fellow believers might think it's really super duper that you "believe in" some unbelievable convoluted story.--to us, it's no more ennobling or worthy of respect than those who really really believe in some other story you find crazy-- Mormons... Muslims... rain dancers, etc. Really. It's the SAME sort of crazy actually.

Cheers.

Jontg

23rd August 2008, 05:41 PM

Beautifully said, Articulett--you said what I was going to say better than I could have.

Madalch

23rd August 2008, 06:30 PM

There only is one God. He has revealed Himself to us.

Thousands of Gods have revealed themselves to thousands of different prohets, at least according to those prophets. Why would we, or anyone, pick you to believe, and distrust all the others?

And don't reply with, "Because I'm right!" or any variation thereof.

syetenb

23rd August 2008, 07:09 PM

Your world view is subjective too, Sye,-- you just pretend it's all coming from an invisible immeasurable guy that you have somehow deduced the "mind" of...

Wow, what a lot of unsported assertions you make. I really don’t feel like sifting through that diaper of verbal diarrhea, but leaving you thinking that you have any point at all would border on criminal. How do you know that my worldview is subjective? Support your assertion please. How do you know ANYTHING for that matter?

There is a universe and reality and objective truth that exists whether people believe in it or not.

How do you know?

.. science turns out to be the best way to find that truth--it has a built-in error correcting mechanism that faith lacks.

Problem is, all of science is based on inductive reasoning which you have exactly zero basis for assuming is valid, and you do so on blind faith. Sure, you will deny this but tell me then, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the future will be like the past?

But the truth just keeps being the truth no matter what people believe.

How do you know?

Your beliefs are coming from inside your head as is your morality even if you believe it's infused from some divine force.

Prove this please.

There is nothing in your words that makes your beliefs more "real".

What do my words have to do with the objective reality of what I know?

"Right" and "wrong" are all words and terms used only by humans... they all require an "according to"-- they don't exist absent the human mind.

Prove this please.

The same with "good" or "bad". These are all subjective terms... and your god, morality, and beliefs are subjective too.

Prove this please.

Logic is a tool we use to look beyond subjectivity. 2+2=4 no matter what you believe.

Um, is that right? If so, according to your reasoning 2 + 2 did not = 4 before there were human minds, since, according to you, right and wrong are dependant on the human mind.

Those are the kinds of things logic can help us discover. What's "good" or "bad" will always be the opinion of humans, and until it can be measured and quantified, it is not objective.

Apparently what you fail to realise though, is that saying something is so, does not make it so. How do you know that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are not objective?

Circular reasoning works, because circular reasoning works.

Perhaps you can tell us how you know that your reasoning is valid? (Not holding my breath though).

While it's true that each believer thinks that those who believe like they do are the "most moral"--Most nonbelievers don't share the same opinion about who the "most moral" are. They tend to prefer intelligence, kindness to real sentient beings, understanding, and humor over imagined "higher morality".

Problem is, absent an absolute standard, you have zero basis for calling anything ‘kind,’ or ‘intelligent.’

Even though in your minds, you believers each think that your fantastic morality and logic is "evident" "objectively". It's only evident in your own head. To us, you sound as full of yourself and deluded as those who believe in Karma/reincarnation or other gods or Scientology.

Remarkably you don’t come off as sounding arrogant or deluded at all :-D

You ought to endeavor to give us a reason to respect your pedantry more than we would respect believers in the above. So far, none of you have. Yet you all feel entitled to special respect that you would not show to such people.

Um, is respect good? Why should anyone show ‘respect’ to anyone else? What is your standard of respect?

So far you are arguing identically and as illogically as the truthers, homeopaths, astrologists, schizophrenics, and believers in faiths you don't share.

By what standard of logic, is my arguing ‘illogical,’ how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?

The only tool we have to find out what is true is objective evidence.

Um, is that true? If so, what is the objective evidence that supports the truth of that statement?

You might want to cut the insincere questions that you don't really want an answer to

Oh, I want answers, but I’m pretty sure you that you assume that I do not so that you can avoid answering my questions.

Also, do you understand the difference between a fact and everything else (opinion, belief, judgment, preference, notion, motto, ideal, etc.?)

Well, why don’t you give me ONE objective fact, so we can see how much YOU know about facts.

The earth is a sphere whether you really, really believe it is flat or not.

Prove this please. If you appeal to your senses and reasoning, please include how you know them to be valid.

Our sun was a star even before we invented the word star.

Prove this please.

Humans all share common ancestry whether you believe it or not.

Prove this please.

You seem to want respect for some pretty lame "opinions" that you don't realize are "opinions" without offering the same respect of others

Huh, I’m just telling you what I know to be true, you are just offering your faith-based opinions, no one is talking about respect. You certainy aren’t showing any with your arrogant rant.

Cheers,

Sye

Wowbagger

23rd August 2008, 07:24 PM

I am surprised no one brought up the scientific method, yet.

If you want to "prove" that God exists, why not develop a testable hypothesis that can be verified independently, and empirically demonstrate His existence, under carefully controlled conditions?

Logic only goes so far. How do you know your logic is right? It is not enough to say "because it is logical!". No, what you must do is put it to the test!

Because, guess what? Logic can actually be wrong sometimes! Did you know that?!

tsig

23rd August 2008, 07:59 PM

Wow, what a lot of unsported assertions you make. I really don’t feel like sifting through that diaper of verbal diarrhea, but leaving you thinking that you have any point at all would border on criminal. How do you know that my worldview is subjective? Support your assertion please. How do you know ANYTHING for that matter?

How do you know?

Problem is, all of science is based on inductive reasoning which you have exactly zero basis for assuming is valid, and you do so on blind faith. Sure, you will deny this but tell me then, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the future will be like the past?

How do you know?

Prove this please.

What do my words have to do with the objective reality of what I know?

Prove this please.

Prove this please.

Um, is that right? If so, according to your reasoning 2 + 2 did not = 4 before there were human minds, since, according to you, right and wrong are dependant on the human mind.

Apparently what you fail to realise though, is that saying something is so, does not make it so. How do you know that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are not objective?

Perhaps you can tell us how you know that your reasoning is valid? (Not holding my breath though).

Problem is, absent an absolute standard, you have zero basis for calling anything ‘kind,’ or ‘intelligent.’

Remarkably you don’t come off as sounding arrogant or deluded at all :-D

Um, is respect good? Why should anyone show ‘respect’ to anyone else? What is your standard of respect?

By what standard of logic, is my arguing ‘illogical,’ how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?

Um, is that true? If so, what is the objective evidence that supports the truth of that statement?

Oh, I want answers, but I’m pretty sure you that you assume that I do not so that you can avoid answering my questions.

Well, why don’t you give me ONE objective fact, so we can see how much YOU know about facts.

Prove this please. If you appeal to your senses and reasoning, please include how you know them to be valid.

Prove this please.

Prove this please.

Huh, I’m just telling you what I know to be true, you are just offering your faith-based opinions, no one is talking about respect. You certainy aren’t showing any with your arrogant rant.

Cheers,

Sye

Why are you so hung up on an "absolute"?

You are telling us your opinion about truth and your opinion is no more valid than Articulet's, mine or the guy that delivers my pizza.

You are showing no respect to anyone if you think you can assert the need for an absolute then use that assertion to lead to Jesus.

Jontg

23rd August 2008, 08:21 PM

We do not "know" anything. We may, however, reasonably assume certain things, given the vast body of evidence that supports them. For example, a common Fundamentalist canard is that you need faith to think the sun will rise in the morning. This is not the case. The sun has risen every morning since the Earth first came into being, with absolute, one hundred percent consistency. There is no object or event in the observable universe which would at any point in the immediate future--let alone the next twenty-four hours--cause this to change. It is quite possible that the sun may spontaneously explode as I'm typing this--but the odds of it doing so are so slim as to be nonexistent, and worrying about such a slim chance is pointless.
As for our senses, we rely on them for the same reason we rely on the scientific method: they are the best tools available to us. And we do have a standard by which we can make judgments--a standard that doesn't rely on nomad legends and threats of eternal torment. It's called a conscience, and it's been fine-tuned over millions of years to serve us as well as our senses. It has bugs, like any other system, but mine works well enough--what would you do if you had to rely on it?

articulett

23rd August 2008, 09:56 PM

The sun rises whether we believe it will or not. It rose before humans existed.

Actually, it doesn't really "rise"... science tells us that is an illusion created by the fact that our earth rotates towards the sun each morning.... at the rate of 1000 mph. (This centrifugal force is gravity-- it keeps our atmosphere on our earth and us on the earth as well. No invisible man revealed this in any magic book.) Because we are tiny beings on this big spherical planet, the sun appears to rise from our perspective.

I'm surprised that so many theists use that same lame argument. This tells me that this must sound like a good argument to them. I wonder which guru first made it up? I've heard it so often now, and I cant' believe that people think this is a logical argument for anything. I think people must really need to believe that science is another "faith"-- that makes their faith look equally likely to be true in their heads... but it also means that Scientology and Hinduism and Astrology are equally likely.

There's an infinite number of beliefs about reality--but only one reality. The sun does what the sun does without regard to what people believe or think. How arrogant to imagine that "faith" is required for the sun to keep shining and the earth to keep rotating towards it giving us the illusion that the sun is coming "up" each morning. If the earth stopped rotating, we'd all fly off into space.

These are facts that are readily verifiable-- they are based on evidence that any human can verify. No invisible person cares if you believe it or not. Objective reality is true even when you are ignorant about it. Understanding it, has lead to all of our scientific advancements including this computer. Airplanes fly whether you have "faith" they will or not. And praying doesn't keep them in the sky when hijackers (praying to their god) are bent on driving them into buildings. Faith can make people do very crazy things certain that they are doing very "great" things for some great invisible magic deity.

I don't imagine conversing with Sye would be any more productive or useful than trying to talk a schizophrenic out of their delusion or trying to tell those convinced they've been probed by aliens, that they probably experienced a hypnogogic dream or something else--not actual alien visitation.

I do think it's sad when people think that believing an unbelievable story is more important than what is true. And I'm glad Sye stopped by to demonstrate why. Religion glorifies magical thinking, far beyond the age when people should have outgrown it. When you "believe in belief", you are a sucker for anyone who can convince you he has the "bestest truth".

articulett

23rd August 2008, 11:58 PM

Irrefutable truth that Baal exists!

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/06/03/irrefutable-proof-that-baal-exists/

This is so much simpler that convoluted website mentioned in the OP; I'm sold.

Alex Libman

24th August 2008, 12:27 AM

Where's the button for "My Interest In Religion Is Limited To Profiting From Other People's Stupidity"?

Ron_Tomkins

24th August 2008, 01:26 AM

There only is one God.

What God is that and how are you so sure there is only one?

He has revealed Himself to us.

When? Where?

Prove that I cannot prove or disprove it please.

Well, you haven't. It's as simple as that. You haven't proved anything.

articulett

24th August 2008, 08:36 AM

tsig

24th August 2008, 10:39 AM

Sye says "prove it".

So Sye, what evidence would it take to "prove it" to you?

In my experience no amount of evidence will change a "true believer's" mind in whatever it is they've come to "believe in". (It's akin to trying to "deprogram them").

On the other hand, the most scurrilous bit of confirmation biased type evidence-- plus the belief that they've stumbled into "The Truth" is all they need to keep spinning their delusion.

They've come to believe that believing in "X" is more important than whether it's true or not. They don't want the truth--they just want to continue to convince themselves they have it. Most of us have been there. We've come to prefer the truth rather than believing in something because of the way that belief makes us feel.

It is this need for the Truth that drives all religions.

It seems most people cannot live with uncertainly but are driven to find Absolutes. I have seen this in several threads lately were the religious kept insisting that the world had to be black or white.

Unfortunately for them we live in a world of color but they do not see it for their eyes are riveted on their god.

articulett

24th August 2008, 11:25 AM

I think this "belief in belief" is very dangerous to rational thinking; it can lead to all sorts of behavior that causes real sentient beings to suffer... meanwhile the believer is blinded to this suffering, because he believes that he is doing something for some imaginary being that has specific desires of him.

Plus, those who believe that it's good or noble or "salvation worthy" to believe are nearly impossible to deprogram. In their minds, their eternity depends on them convincing an invisible man that they truly believe some unbelievable story and that they are willing to do anything to "show their faith". They hear words and imagine motives in the nonbeliever that aren't there so that they don't have to hear what is actually said.

Ron_Tomkins

24th August 2008, 11:56 AM

There are two types of debates: The Honest Debate and the Non-Honest Debate.

The Non-Honest debate is usually, if not always, held by the party that doesn't really have a solid argument to back up his claim.

In the Honest Debate, both parties will try to take all of the information and compress it as much as possible, clarifying the meanings, grouping up the pieces of information and compressing them into bigger cells of meaning, and clearing up the area so that a single conclusion that is clear and concise can be reached.

In the Dishonest Debate, one party is trying to reach this single cell of understanding, while the other one is acting in the exact opposite direction. He will try to break the topic in as many ramifications as possible and soon, it will come to a point where the topic at hand is no longer being discussed. The final result looks like a tree with a million branches. Trying to stay on topic is no longer possible at this point (See posts 63, 69, 70 and 74 of this thread)

Additionally, in the case of woos, the metaphysical argument is usually at hand and it is used to the person's convenience. Whenever it is convenient for him, the evidence presented to him means nothing because "everything in this life could be an illusion" according to his mindset, therefore the evidence presented to him is included and thus not valid.
But paradoxically, the most unreliable sources of information you could think of, are valid evidence to support his claims (Dreams, anecdotes, writings, etc). Of course, if someone presented him an anecdote that contradicted his belief, that one wouldn't count. That's out of the question.

Therefore, then can be no argument. It's a dishonest situation.

articulett

24th August 2008, 12:24 PM

Which is why I think they should be relegated to arguing with each other over which woo is true.

Obfuscation rather than clarification is the top woo argument technique-- reminds me of a lawyer with a guilty client as a defendant... trying to sow doubt amidst the miasma information.

The woo who preach here lack the ability to separate facts from everything else (opinion, feelings, belief, preferences, mottoes, spin, etc.) which makes them very poor vehicles for furthering understanding on any level. Their goal always seems to me that they are trying to convince themselves (by convincing others) that their personal truth is more than just an "opinion"-- though they post with this pretense that they are interested in dialogue and "understanding". They often post as though they have tons of support, but they will accuse skeptics of doing the same when they say "us" and "we" even though "us" and "we" are terms in line with by skeptics speaking about skeptics on a skeptics forum!

(Their inability to see the irony and hypocrisy in their statements is a font of never-ending amusement.)

You don't win or lose the truth. There is just one. Lawyers may argue various ways to sway a jury-- but the truth about what happened remains the truth whether people ever understand that truth in it's entirety or not. You can't debate reality--you can, however, increase your understanding of it by looking at the evidence without the blinders of what you WANT to be true.

There either are invisible immeasurable entities that interact in undetectable ways with humans or they are all human inventions.

We know many are human inventions. We know there's an infinite variety and flavor of such entities-- all indistinguishable from myths, delusions, and the absence of such entities as far as the measurable evidence goes. We know that humans have a long history of utilizing these entities to explain what they don't understand and to control others through hope and fear. All of these are facts which should help one decide which the correct answer to the first dichotomy.

Instead, people are indoctrinated with some answer and dash about looking for evidence and feelings that "prove" this answer is "the truth". Not only do they conclude that some such entities are real... they conclude that THEY'VE figure out which ones through some sort of subjective nebulous means indistinguishable form delusion, confirmation bias, confusion, etc. For example, Sye concludes there is ONE god, when it makes no sense to speak of one of something that doesn't exist in any measurable way!! (not mention the 3-in-1 inanity of the mysterious trinity.)

syetenb

24th August 2008, 02:04 PM

There are two types of debates: The Honest Debate and the Non-Honest Debate.

Hey, I'm intersted in honest debate, but first we must establish the groundwork for the very concept of debate. Debate presupposes the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic. How do you account for them according to your worldview?

Cheers,

Sye

Madalch

24th August 2008, 02:05 PM

How do you account for them according to your worldview?
Please prove that they need to be accounted for.

Ron_Tomkins

24th August 2008, 02:32 PM

Hey, I'm intersted in honest debate, but first we must establish the groundwork for the very concept of debate. Debate presupposes the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic. How do you account for them according to your worldview?

Sye, I am not interested in your metaphysical style of debate. I'm not interested in your confusing questions in the style of "how do you account for the sun being real according to your worldview?". That's not how we deal with reality in here. We take for granted that the objects around us are real, independent of our "worldview". It doesn't matter what my "worldview" is. There is a world, wether we "view" it or not. Wether we see it or not. Wether we're here to appreciate it or not. Scientists takes care of studying the world around us and proving that independent of our worldview, it exists, and until we find a better explanation, that's what we have. You're trying to go somewhere else and avoid the many issues that have been raised at you and which you still have not confronted. You haven't answered the questions in post 81. You haven't told me if you understand what the Either-Or Fallacy means (and that how "impossibility of the contrary" is linked to it) . You haven't told me if you've ever read anything by Dennet, Feynman or Sagan. So don't tell me you're interested in a honest debate.

You treat every argument with your "How do you account that X is real according to your worldview?" That is a nonsensical question typical from intelligent people such as yourself who avoid reality and no honest argument can be reached. Not in a skeptics forum.

You and other people I've dealt with in this forum with remind me of Charles Manson. That's right. One of the most brilliant and intelligent people I've seen. In this interview, Charlie Rose is trying to make Manson understand the lack of consistency in his argument, because it appears as if Manson understood and accepted that murder is not good and that hurting innocent people is wrong. You get the feeling, after hearing Manson talk, that he is actually quite reasonable and you could reach an understanding with him.

[<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P7m33E3HZes&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P7m33E3HZes&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

However as you can see, Rose fails to reach an understanding with Manson. Note how Manson starts engaging in "poetic gibberish" as soon as he feels that he's reaching a dead end in his argument. Whenever the argument reaches that dead end in which you know the answer is too obvious and it's not in your favor, you slip away from danger by talking in weird analogies (such as "the circle" that he mentions). All Charlie Rose is trying to do is get Manson to admit that the very things he has admitted are "wrong" are the very same things that he did. A very simple reasoning. But it's impossible. Every time they seem to be getting there, Manson uses crazy analogies and weird confusing phrases to disguise the direction that the conversation is getting. And makes the occasional weird faces and dances which contribute to create a smoke screen between him and the main issue.

Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. But your "debating technique" reminds me of him.

Prometheus

24th August 2008, 02:58 PM

Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer.

Thanks! Just when I was thinking I needed to add another line to my sig! :th:

Ron_Tomkins

24th August 2008, 04:23 PM

Thanks! Just when I was thinking I needed to add another line to my sig! :th:

:D

articulett

24th August 2008, 04:42 PM

I don't think reality is open for debate anyhow.

It can be understood...I'm not sure "debate" is the best method for understanding it however.

Brian-M

24th August 2008, 04:58 PM

Actually, it doesn't really "rise"... science tells us that is an illusion created by the fact that our earth rotates towards the sun each morning.... at the rate of 1000 mph. (This centrifugal force is gravity-- it keeps our atmosphere on our earth and us on the earth as well. No invisible man revealed this in any magic book.) Because we are tiny beings on this big spherical planet, the sun appears to rise from our perspective.

There's an infinite number of beliefs about reality--but only one reality. The sun does what the sun does without regard to what people believe or think. How arrogant to imagine that "faith" is required for the sun to keep shining and the earth to keep rotating towards it giving us the illusion that the sun is coming "up" each morning. If the earth stopped rotating, we'd all fly off into space.

Articulett, I don't mean to offend, but you have a really messed-up view of gravity.

The force that keeps the Earth rotating is inertia, not centrifugal force or gravity.

Gravity is not dependent on rotation. If the Earth stopped rotating, Gravity would still hold us down.

Centrifugal force is a result of rotation, but it's an outward force that opposes gravity (which is why the Earth bulges slightly outward on the equator - centrifugal force). If you sped-up the rotation of the Earth enough, then you might see people flying off into space. (At least, those who live near the equator might.)

Richard Masters

24th August 2008, 05:21 PM

Lookie look what I stumbled upon:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/main.php

The website that proves that God exists.

As you click on the "the proof" link, you will be given 4 options. If you're like me, you might click on the "I don't care if Absolute Truth exists". What happens after clicking on it is absolutely hilarious.

Could God have used fallible people to write an infallible book? (http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/main.php#could-God-have-used-fallible-people)

Of course, He is God after all.

It appears to answer the question of whether the bible is infallible, but doesn't tell us much other than that it is a possibility (and just about everything is possible, thus more meaningless the response).

Since it resorts to the the bible to answer a question about God and then the bible, it is circular, as well.

imjohn

24th August 2008, 05:30 PM

I read through some of the debate on the blog that was linked to earlier in the thread.

This person is not worth debating with. He consistently refuses to provides proof of his base contention. In these situations debate is worthless -- the equivalent of arguments I had with my siblings as a child.

"Is not."
"Is too."
and so on....

Richard Masters

24th August 2008, 05:44 PM

It appears to answer the question of whether the bible is infallible, but doesn't tell us much other than that it is a possibility (and just about everything is possible, thus more meaningless the response).

Since it resorts to the the bible to answer a question about God and then the bible, it is circular, as well.

How can we know that the Bible is true?
(http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/main.php#why-must-we-submit)
No doubt you have heard much evidence for the textual validity of the Bible. From its uniqueness in history claiming to be the inerrant word of a personal God, to the early date of the manuscripts; From the precision of the copyists, to the internal consistency among so many different authors over such a long period of time. But, as you have probably gathered by now, as wonderful as the physical evidence is, this website is not about physical evidence. (Later in the Q&A this will be probed deeper). You see, for someone who approaches the Bible thinking that it cannot be true, the evidence will be as quickly discounted as evidence supporting the truth of a fairy tale.

Translation: "Someone who believes something is resistant to changing that belief." True, but doesn't tell us anything that particularly supports the site's point of view.

Rather than use physical evidence to show that the Bible is most probably true, we again go back to intellectual evidence, and logical proof, to show that the Bible is necessarily true.
Where is that logical proof?

We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary!
What is impossible about the bible being false?

It is only because the Bible is true that we have justification for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws.

Vague, care to explain? How does the bible justify unchanging universal laws? Doesn't "God" change his/her mind about everything from the Old Testament to the New Testament? So much for consistency and unchanging laws.

It is only by God's revealing Himself to us through His word that we have grounds for rational thought.

Big assumption. Please clarify. How so?

We use rational thought, therefore we can know that the Bible is true.

The ability to know if the bible is true, isn't the same as actually knowing that the bible is true.

That we use rational thought (unlikely in the case of the site's author) has nothing to do with the above conclusion.

Attempting to use logic to try to disprove the only possible source for logic would be self-refuting.

It would be, if the bible were the only the only possible source for logic. But nowhere does the site's author show that this is the case.

In other words, the logic is valid, but the conditional premise is merely an assumption.

Brian-M

24th August 2008, 07:00 PM

Sye, I'm surprised but glad to see you on this site.

As you may not have time to address all the points in my email, I'd just like to point out one very annoying aspect of your questionnaire. Many of your questions force us to choose between "Absolutely True" and "False". Subjective truths (such as "I don't know") are, by definition, neither "Absolutely True" nor "False", so you leave us with no valid way of answering those questions.

Briefly, here are my thoughts on some of the statements and questions you have posed in this thread.

I'm wondering by what logical standard you call ANYTHING fallacious, how you account for that standard, and why that standard necessarily applies to my argument? Hardly makes sense to appeal to a universal, abstract, invariant standard of logic, which your worldview cannot account for.

It's odd how your always refer to logic and morals as 'abstract', as if there were any other kind. My worldview accounts for 'universal' standards of logic quite simply. We invent the rules of logic ourselves. Any rules of logic we invent that are not self-consistent or do not 'fit' the behavior of the universe are discarded. Those that remain we call the 'universal, invariant standards of logic'. No God required.

Problem is, you cannot resolve the invariant non-particular properties of the universe, with the varying particlular ones. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the laws of logic, or science, will be valid 5 seconds from now?

On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the future will be like the past? To say that the future will be like the past, because the future has been like the past, in the past, is question begging.

TO assume that the future will be like the past is to reason inductively, what I'm asking though, is what is your basis for assuming that the future WILL BE like the past?

We make this assumption because to assume otherwise would be to discard all possibility of understanding anything. Ironically, your own beliefs contradict your own argument.

If The Bible is accurate, and God can manage all those impossible feats, such as halting the sun in the sky (Joshua 10:13) then there would be no invariable universal laws! Everything would be determined at God's whim instead.

I'm not even asking you why logic works, I'm simply asking you how you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws according to your worldview?

What makes you assume there are any "universal, abstract, invariant laws"?

That is not my argument at all. I, in fact, insist on reason, the difference is that I can account for the preconditions for reasoning, i.e. the laws of logic, whereas you cannot.

Simply saying "God made it so" with reference to one of many competing religious documents doesn't account for anything.

Indeed it is harmful, reprehensible, and causes mental aberrations, and I empathize with your distress, what you must realize however, is that without an absoltue standard, 'harm,' 'reprehensiblility,' and 'mental aberrations' are equally subjective. Without an absolute standard the molester could say that NOT molesting children is harmful, reprehensible, and causes mental aberrations, and you lose all argument against their position. Furthermore, without an absolute standard of right and wrong, one could not even say that 'harm, reprehensibility, and the causing of mental aberrations' are even wrong! Why not do those things?

"Harm" is still easily defined on an objective standard, even without referring to an "absolute" standard. I'm not sure I understand your point.

Neither is an absolute standard required for determining right or wrong. A common standard is all that's needed.

In my opinion, our common standards for right and wrong derive from our evolutionary instincts concerning communal behavior. For example, in our species our offspring are dependent on others for survival, consequently we instinctively 'know' that harming children (either directly, or by negligence) is wrong.

Your Bible however, repeatedly commands that children should be put to death for disobeying or cursing their parents. If the Bible represents the will of God, and the absolute laws of morality, then killing children would be regarded as morally acceptable. But it isn't.

Now, what is your standard of logic, and why should anyone adhere to it?

I do not see the resolution to your dilemma there. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that your senses, the laws of logic, or the reasoning with which you interpret them, are valid?

Repeated demonstration of effectiveness. Empirical evidence is all we truly have to validate our forms of logic... and our religion. Your religion is most definitely not validated by empirical evidence.

It is not my intention, nor am I able to convince anyone of anything. It is the Christian position that you already know that God exists, but are 'suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans 1: 18-21).

Funny, that's the exact opposite of my experience. I grew up without being taught anything for or against a religious point of view. While I was peripherally aware of other people's beliefs, it never even occurred to me to think that God might be real. It's only recently as I've become aware that some people believe everything in The Bible to be completely true, in direct conflict to everything I "know" to be true that I've become interested in the subject.

Hey, I'm intersted in honest debate, but first we must establish the groundwork for the very concept of debate. Debate presupposes the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic. How do you account for them according to your worldview?

Debate presupposes nothing more than presenting differing opinions in accordance with a commonly accepted set of rules. "Universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic" are not required.

Richard Masters

24th August 2008, 07:09 PM

Oh yeah. I remember that site.

So clean. So neat. Like a small drop of clear fresh decontaminated water.
Tasty.

That was way too awesome.

Wowbagger

24th August 2008, 07:19 PM

Hey, I'm intersted in honest debate, but first we must establish the groundwork for the very concept of debate. Debate presupposes the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic. What if I claim there are no universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic. And, I wished to debate that with you?

The groundwork for establishing the debate will be based on who can better reflect how the natural world works. You say invariant laws are required. I say provisional models tend to be better. What say you?

syetenb

24th August 2008, 07:21 PM

You treat every argument with your "How do you account that X is real according to your worldview?" That is a nonsensical question typical from intelligent people such as yourself who avoid reality and no honest argument can be reached. Not in a skeptics forum.

All I'm asking is how universal, abstract, invariant laws make sense in your worldview. No sense debating if you cannot account for the foundtions of debate.

Cheers,

Sye

syetenb

24th August 2008, 07:28 PM

What if I claim there are no universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic. And, I wished to debate that with you?

Then I would ask, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview? You see, if the laws of logic do not necessarily apply to our discussion then you should have no problem with that contradiction.

The groundwork for establishing the debate will be based on who can better reflect how the natural world works. You say invariant laws are required. I say provisional models tend to be better. What say you?

I say that one cannot determine what is 'better' without an absolute standard, which you, apparently, deny exists.

Cheers,

Sye

Richard Masters

24th August 2008, 07:32 PM

All I'm asking is how universal, abstract, invariant laws make sense in your worldview. No sense debating if you cannot account for the foundtions of debate.

Cheers,

Sye

Assuming you are referring to math, physics, logic and the like, they make sense in that they are consistent with common experience and historical record, but I do not assume that we know everything with certainty.

Brian-M

24th August 2008, 07:34 PM

I say that one cannot determine what is 'better' without an absolute standard, which you, apparently, deny exists.

A relative standard would suffice. Are you even using the same definition for "absolute" the rest of us are? Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt it.

syetenb

24th August 2008, 07:50 PM

syetenb

24th August 2008, 07:54 PM

Assuming you are referring to math, physics, logic and the like, they make sense in that they are consistent with common experience and historical record,

That would make those laws contingent to our experiences, which clearly, they are not. Besides, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that any of those laws will hold 5 seconds from now?

but I do not assume that we know everything with certainty.

Well, perhaps you can tell me ONE thing that you know, and how you know it?

Cheers,

Sye

Richard Masters

24th August 2008, 08:12 PM

That would make those laws contingent to our experiences, which clearly, they are not.

There is a difference between laws being contingent on my experiences and the interpretation of laws being contingent on my experiences.

The first implies that my experience is the cause of laws (I never claim that). The second refers to my experience as a metaphorical lens - not a cause of laws, merely an observer of.

Besides, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that any of those laws will hold 5 seconds from now?

I actually don't assume it. In practice, said laws were consistent 5 seconds ago, and the same was true 5 seconds earlier, and appear to have been so all of my life, and according to historical record that's the way things have been. So instead of simply assuming, I theorize that those laws will continue to be consistent 5 seconds from now, but I don't think of it as absolute truth; I think of it as the best model of reality given present knowledge.

Well, perhaps you can tell me ONE thing that you know, and how you know it?

It depends on your definition of "know". If you mean with absolute certainty then nothing. If you mean with a pretty good probability of certainty based on the best model of reality I can muster, then I can tell you I know lots of things.

articulett

24th August 2008, 08:17 PM

Articulett, I don't mean to offend, but you have a really messed-up view of gravity.

The force that keeps the Earth rotating is inertia, not centrifugal force or gravity.

Gravity is not dependent on rotation. If the Earth stopped rotating, Gravity would still hold us down.

Centrifugal force is a result of rotation, but it's an outward force that opposes gravity (which is why the Earth bulges slightly outward on the equator - centrifugal force). If you sped-up the rotation of the Earth enough, then you might see people flying off into space. (At least, those who live near the equator might.)

damn... I had a feeling I was getting something wrong there. (And I'm hardly offended-- I'm glad not to be running around believing the wrong thing.

If you stopped the earth you'd fly off in a tangent, right? http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=16

That makes sense... and Mars' weaker gravity caused it to lose it's atmosphere-- so I guessed I added up a few pieces of information and got a wrong answer. But I was right about the "sun rising"... which was my point... and hopefully someone brilliant here will clue me in more about gravity... and the difference between centrifugal and centripetal force. It's been many years since I had a physics class, and I am rusty. But I prefer to not know rather than believe the wrong thing or (gasp) spread misinformation to others the way the woo do.

Ron_Tomkins

24th August 2008, 10:39 PM

All I'm asking is how universal, abstract, invariant laws make sense in your worldview. No sense debating if you cannot account for the foundtions of debate.

Cheers,

Sye

I already answered that in my last reply, Sye (post #89).
No sense talking about foundations of a debate if you don't even pay attention to what I say.

Wowbagger

25th August 2008, 08:58 AM

Then I would ask, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview? That is like asking someone who does not believe in the Tooth Fairy how they would account for the Tooth Fairy in their world view. It is simply not a necessary part!

You see, if the laws of logic do not necessarily apply to our discussion then you should have no problem with that contradiction. From a scientific perspective, there are no universal truths. There are only provisional models. Even "laws" and facts such as gravity only function as a provisional model subject to change. And change it might, once quantum gravity is figured out!

Also from the scientific perspective, you have to put your ideas to the test, before they are accepted as factual. Logic, alone, will not cut it. After all, it was once perfectly logical that the Earth would be the center of the Universe.

Even morality changes over time. Today, we recognize child abuse as an absolutely horrible crime. And, we hope it stays that way. But, it was not always so. The Bible has a few examples: Killing children because they disagree with their parents, and allowing daughters to be raped by visiting men. Etc.

Yes, there was a time in human history, when abusing children was acceptable. We like to think our morality has improved, drastically, since then. (However, defining what we mean by "improve" is open to all sorts of semantic and subjective gymnastics, that I would rather not get into, now. It is sufficient to demonstrate that morality has changed, over time, whether we call it an "improvement" or not.)

I think the Humanist Manifesto sums it up nicely:

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility. http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php

And, that does not just apply to Humanism. It applies to religions, too! Generation by generation, morality changes, based on human needs and interests, and each generation tests those changes in their own way.

I say that one cannot determine what is 'better' without an absolute standard, which you, apparently, deny exists. The goal of my side of the debate, would be to demonstrate how nature could actually be better understood, once we abandon ideas of absolutist, black-and-white thinking. Nature operates with many shades of gray, with its components changing, and evolving, over time.

Modern science has made tremendous headway in understanding the Universe, in thinking this way. It leaves absolutist ideals in the dust!

For example, the Big Bang theory opened doors to physics discoveries that lead to a better understanding of our cosmos.

And, Evolution has helped us study and treat countless diseases, saving millions of lives. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01

If you think the Universe could be better understood using absolute, invariant laws of logic, show me how!

the_ignored

25th August 2008, 11:21 AM

Sye, you've been posting the same crap on Stephen Law's blog (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/sinner%20ministries'%20%22proof%20of%20the%20exist ence%20of%20god%22), on the CT Valley atheists forum (http://www.cvatheists.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=561&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=Sye+TenB&sid=925ce8ea553493d94b78b877b62481ac), on the Raytractors forum (http://raytractors.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-just-puked-in-my-mouth-little.html) (you can also do a search on the top left hand side; type in "Sye" and you'll get the posts that talk about him and have him in them, and on Ray Comfort's blog (http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/06/truth-about-atheist.html?showComment=1212933780000#c4030088851 703915418).

Each time you say the same thing, over and over, and each time, especially on Stephen Law's blog, you got shot down (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/sye-dim-presuppositinalism.html).

(Yes, I know he'll make a joke of that last sentence, but I can't help it; it had to be asked).

Madalch

25th August 2008, 11:35 AM

Each time you say the same thing, over and over, and each time, especially on Stephen Law's blog, you got shot down (http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/sye-dim-presuppositinalism.html).

Can I nominate Mr. Law for a language award?

Toke

25th August 2008, 11:37 AM

Gotta find that laughing dog

Civilized Worm

25th August 2008, 12:17 PM

Because He has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain of it.

What?!? So anyone can just say anything, and claim that it is true because they have sensed it, and their senses must be reliable???

:confused:

Brian-M

25th August 2008, 06:04 PM

Sye, thank you for clearing things up for me.

It has become painfully obvious that not only are you using different definitions from the rest of us, but you also redefine these definitions arbitrarily and fail to apply any consistent form of logic in your arguments.

Consequently, I feel there is no point wasting either of our time discussing this matter any further. For the benefit of other readers, I'd like to highlight some of Sye's glaring absurdities.

There is no such thing as subjective truth. Even saying that you do not know something is making an absolute truth claim that you, in fact, do not know something.

Absolute Truth - True for all people at all times, universally true.

Not only does he fail to understand the concept of "subjective", he also fails to understand his own definition of "Absolute Truth".

My worldview accounts for 'universal' standards of logic quite simply. We invent the rules of logic ourselves. Any rules of logic we invent that are not self-consistent or do not 'fit' the behavior of the universe are discarded. Those that remain we call the 'universal, invariant standards of logic'.
Um, how do you know they are universal, how do you know they are invariant, and how do we invent abstract entities? Could the sun have been both the sun and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way before we 'invented' the law of non-contradiction?

Having made my point that it's the behavior of the universe that determines the laws of logic and not the other way around, I expected him to disagree. I didn't expect him to fail to understand the basic concept.

Problem is, you cannot resolve the invariant non-particular properties of the universe, with the varying particlular ones. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the laws of logic, or science, will be valid 5 seconds from now?

On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the future will be like the past? To say that the future will be like the past, because the future has been like the past, in the past, is question begging.

TO assume that the future will be like the past is to reason inductively, what I'm asking though, is what is your basis for assuming that the future WILL BE like the past?

We make this assumption because to assume otherwise would be to discard all possibility of understanding anything.
Exactly, on what basis is it possible for you to understand anything?

I'm tempted to answer flippantly, "Because we make this assumption". It's funny how he suddenly tries to switch focus back to the broader subject when someone tries to address his repeated questions about one aspect of it. I guess it means he doesn't have to admit he was using the original question to avoid addressing other people's points.

What makes you assume there are any "universal, abstract, invariant laws"?
Which aspect do you deny?
Strange how someone who habitually questions and attacks other people's assumptions can completely fail to understand the question when someone questions his.

Simply saying "God made it so" with reference to one of many competing religious documents doesn't account for anything.
That would be like saying that 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't account for anything, because it does not refer to all the wrong answers.
A non-sequiter. (The stupidity... I hope it's not contagious.)

"Harm" is still easily defined on an objective standard
Let's have it.
Umm, OK...

Harm is damage caused to the structure or function of the body caused by an outside agent or force, which may be physical or chemical. Harm may also refer to damaged feelings or reputation rather than damage to the body.

Neither is an absolute standard required for determining right or wrong. A common standard is all that's needed.
But if it is not a necessary standard, then anyone can contradict you, and you have no argument against them.
You still have an argument against them based on the common standard. Among Christians, the teachings of Jesus would count as a common standard.

For example, in our species our offspring are dependent on others for survival, consequently we instinctively 'know' that harming children (either directly, or by negligence) is wrong.
Why not harm others in order to survive? Is survival the ultimate goal, or is justice, or alltruism, or aesthetics?
You mean like war over resources, or starving people robbing others to get food? People have always done these things (and always will). Evolutionary Game Theory demonstrates exactly why instincts for aultrism and justice are needed.

Repeated demonstration of effectiveness.
And how do you make that determination without FIRST assuming that the laws of logic, your senses, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid?
Obviously, he's never asked himself how he makes the determination that The Bible is true without FIRST assuming that the laws of the bible, and the reasoning with which he interprets them are valid.

Empirical evidence is all we truly have to validate our forms of logic.
Really, where did you sense that the law of non-contradiction holds universally, and is invariant?
Maybe he should ask a quantum physicist how he knows that a partical cannot posses two contradictory properties, or exist in two different locations at the same time. :) So much for a universal, invariant law of non-contradiction.

Debate presupposes nothing more than presenting differing opinions in accordance with a commonly accepted set of rules. "Universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic" are not required.
Um, then they are required. If contradictions are not universally disallowed, then you should have no problem with that one.
How can you argue with someone who can't understand the distinction between "commonly accepted" and "universal"?

Your Bible however, repeatedly commands that children should be put to death for disobeying or cursing their parents. If the Bible represents the will of God, and the absolute laws of morality, then killing children would be regarded as morally acceptable. But it isn't.
Well, pardon me, but I won't get my Biblical exegesis from you. Your interpretation is woeful.

If you won't accept this aspect of the Old Testament from me, will you accept it from Jesus?

For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.'

(Matthew 15:4)

DevilsAdvocate

25th August 2008, 10:04 PM

In regards to the original post:

This “proof” is exactly why I DON’T believe in God.

To reach this page you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.
I agree the universe is not random. I don’t see why we can’t have immaterial laws that describe a material nature because that is the way it looks to me. But I’ll let that pass…

Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore...
Here’s where I do the back-flip. Why would a universe require a God to have universal, unchanging laws? To me it seems a universe would require to NOT have a God to have universal, unchanging laws. Or at least a non-active God. Otherwise, God would be mucking about with things that would change the otherwise predictable universal, unchanging laws.

If there was an active God, it would be like living in a simulation. The speed of light changes sometimes for no reason. Objects in motion suddenly stop being in motion for no reason. Matter in a closed system is suddenly created or destroyed. Atoms and molecules combine in random ways.

But that doesn’t happen. There is no “God force” changing things. Things happen according to universal, unchanging laws. If there are universal, unchanging laws, then God cannot affect anything. There is no “law of God”. Don’t pray to God. Don’t even listen to God—and especially don’t listen to anyone that says they represent the word of God. It is all meaningless because there are universal, unchanging laws of the universe. If you want to know something, discover those laws.

How do we discover the immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality? By using reason and examining the material world with the scientific method. Certainly not by reading some old stories about what other people thought were laws.

Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.Well, well, well, now! We jumped from “theoretical God” to “Christian worldview” with a quantum leap. I don’t know what it means to “borrow from…a God”, but I do know that it isn’t necessary to discover or prove universal, immaterial, unchanging laws or anything else. As the site said, “We use rational thinking to prove things.”
We don’t use God to prove things. We don’t use God’s word to prove things. We don’t use the Bible to prove things. We use rational thinking to prove things.

OK. God exists. Ignore God. Use rational thinking. Follow the laws of logic, mathematics, and science. Works for me.

jmercer

26th August 2008, 03:15 AM

This clearly belongs in R&P... moving there accordingly.

Ron_Tomkins

26th August 2008, 07:14 PM

I'd like to summarize this thread (since it appears Sye has now definitively given up the idea of a dialogue) with the following quote from Richard Feynman that stuck to me today:

"Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars- mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination- stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern- of which I am part- perhaps my stuff was belched fro some forgotten star, as one is belching there. Or see them with the greater eye of Palomar, rushing all apart from some common starting point when they were perhaps all together. What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined! Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"